Topic: Content and looks of the new "cheap in-game help"

chuckw wrote:

By "system...", are you referring to Launchpad? If so, there is a link at the very bottom of the Bug Report page under the "Add Comment" box that allows you to "Add attachment or patch". Clicking on that opens a dialogue where you can browse to the file on your PC that you wish to upload.

Yeah, I know… But the last time I tried to attach a plain text file it was written in the comment instead of attached as an extra file. But I can try again.

Edit: Right, did it. Maybe you just need a text in the comment field?

Two is the oddest prime.

Top

Quote

Hey Venatrix, that's actually a lot nicer than I thought
Fine work!
Good to have something like that at last.
One addition, I'd suggest for the uttermost clarity:
In the section workers/crew required:
One chief miner or better
One miner or better

Being no programmer, I apologize for all my suggestions that imply undue workload and for other misjudgements due to lack of expertise or relevant skills.
I am on Win32, have no means to compile, and rely on prefabricated distributions (Thanks to Tino).

Top

Quote

Astuur wrote:

In the section workers/crew required: One chief miner or better and One miner or better

Hmm… Not sure, if it really is necessary. But I think, digits are better then words.

alocritani wrote:

Suggestion, first: I suggest adding "on average" in the sentences like "In a coal mine one coal is produced in 32.5 seconds".

That's because you will obtain 2 coals every 65 seconds, and not 1 coal every 32.5 (how the sentence suggests).

In that case I think it’s better to write down the real output. That’s less confusing, I think.

Another advantage would be that we wouldn’t have the problem if it’s 32.5 or 32,5.

Another point: Do you know that some mines (like deeper coal mine) produce more coals than the number they remove from the mountains (like 5 coals removing only 4 coals)? (see here)

Do you think this should be pointed out?

I don’t think so. IMO that’s a detail that belongs to the long version (when we come to it) not to the short.

Two is the oddest prime.

Top

Quote

So, somebody is interested out there
You're right Alocritani,

first: I suggest adding "on average" in the sentences like "In a coal mine one coal is produced in 32.5 seconds".

That's because you will obtain 2 coals every 65 seconds, and not 1 coal every 32.5 (how the sentence suggests).

You shall have your "on average" :).

The reasoning behind this is of course that I wanted a common basis for comparison.
I plan to do this sort of "calculation" for every ware in the game, and 1 unit seemed the best for that.
That is also, why I am not so fond of saying 2 coals in 65 seconds.

request now: how is the "efficiency ratio" (coal per food) you talk about in the "In depth - production" section calculated?

Well Calculation is a big word, it's more like an estimate. That is why I am not giving any numbers here.
It is simple comparison. I had a feeling comparing apples to pears (i.e. pitta bread with meat or fish) was not really good,
but wanted to give some relative measurement.

The general idea is: a mine needs one item (fish, meat or bread) to produce 2 coals. (2/1=2)
A deep mine needs three items (fish/meat plus bread plus beer) to produce 4 coals. (4/3=1,333...)
A deeper mine needs three items (fish/meat plus bread plus strongbeer) to produce 5 coal. (5/3=1,666...)
Since strong beer and beer are made of the same ingredients, I see them as equal quantity.

Another point: Do you know that some mines (like deeper coal mine) produce more coals than the number they remove from the mountains (like 5 coals removing only 4 coals)? (see here)

I guess you are relating to this conf file section:

[work]
sleep=40000
consume=meal
animate=working 16000
mine=coal 2 100 10
produce=coal:2
animate=working 16000
mine=coal 2 100 10
produce=coal:3

I have seen that, but I am unsure, whether this really can be interpreted in this way.
I cannot find any good documentation about the first mine= parameter.
The mining section in the wiki is above my head mathematically.

Do you think this should be pointed out?

If your interpretation is correct, I'd have to explain, why a mine actually produces coal out of nothing. Not an easy job
On the other hand I feel that withholding the info, that deeper mines will ultimately bring you more coal than any other type from not-so-techy players, is unfair.

But yes, once somebody explains to me how to interpret this, I could well be a part of the "in depth" side.

Being no programmer, I apologize for all my suggestions that imply undue workload and for other misjudgements due to lack of expertise or relevant skills.
I am on Win32, have no means to compile, and rely on prefabricated distributions (Thanks to Tino).

Top

Quote

Astuur wrote:

mine=coal 2 100 10

produce=coal:3

I have seen that, but I am unsure, whether this really can be interpreted in this way. I cannot find any good documentation about the first mine= parameter.

If your interpretation is correct, I'd have to explain, why a mine actually produces coal out of nothing. Not an easy job

I've found information about mine command here and yes, it seems that obtaining 3 coals while removing 2 from mountains has been done by purpose (see here)

Top

Quote